Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Jerome Lacoste wrote:
I try to avoid not following the conventions, as the problems that can
appear later when using a "buggy" plugin.
Unless there are some arguments against following the conventions, I
suggest that we follow the conventions.
Where's your audacity :-) ?
Why can't we move the POM under mojo-parent AND rename the parent
artifact to mojo-parent ?
+1 to that
Hm, sounds logical to me. The guys over at Commons handle their parent POM
similiar, i.e. its artifact id is "commons-parent" and it is kept in a
standalone directory/trunk named "commons-parent".
As a matter of consistency, I assume we would do the same to the sandbox
parent, i.e. move/rename it to "mojo-sandbox-parent".
Yes
Then another question arises: If we change the artifact id, should we
continue the version numbering with 18 or just start over with 1?
Nah, just keep on adding one to what we already have. It is easier to
keep track of the version when you can just say 16 or 18 and people know
at once which parent you're talking about, without worrying about if
it's the old or the new one.
Doesn't that solve everybody's problem ?
I guess, at least the Commons guys seem happy with their setup but maybe
Dennis knows better.
Over in Commons we were used to having a sibling parent from the old
Maven 1 days. So having commons-parent on the same level as the projects
that inherit from it felt natural to us.
Projects would be forced to change their POM, but they already have to
change the version number...
I agree, changing the aid in addition to the version shouldn't be that
hard for plugin developers.
I'd hope that we can handle it. Remember that user's very rarely come
into contact with the parent - it's mostly something that us developers
have to worry about.
How do others like Jerome's suggestion?
Benjamin
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
